Science and Logic

Calminian said:

Actually logic and observation where going on a long time before the scientific age came about. These alone would actually be insufficient causes. Something else was necessary to bring about science.

Click to expand...

As I think about it, I don't really think so.

The problem is on the observation. To me, it means not only to see with eye, but also to see with instruments. The activity of observation also includes taking measurements.

If you count those into the scope observation (which it should be), I think science is only observation plus logic, no more. Yes, ancient science is different from modern science. But the differences are only on the degree of logic complexity and accuracy and content of observation, no more than that. In particular, God is not a necessary part in science at all.

If you think there is more than that, I beg you to give an example for illustration.

Calminian said:

Actually it is valid. Love as a verb and love as a noun are not necessarily equivocal. In this case they are not. You could arrange the syllogism this way to make them all nouns, but its meaning is identical.

God applies His love to man
The love of God covers the sins if the subjects it is applied to.
Therefore, God's applied love covers man's sin.

Compare to:

God loves man
love covers sin
Therefore, God's love covers man's sin.

There's no fourth term in either of the above. The gospel is logical!

Now you may not understand the premises, but this doesn't mean they are illogical as another poster already pointed out.

Click to expand...

Almost, but not quite. You still have too many terms and so no middle term.

A better format would be:

The love of God is a force which affects all men.
The love of God is a force which covers sin.
Therefore the love of God is a force which covers the sins of men.

This still is not perfect, because there is still no premise connecting the terms "men" and "sin".

So you need a preliminary argument establishing that connection.

Calminian said:

If God always works outside of human logic, than nothing could ever be known about God and His revelation to us could not be understood on any level.

Click to expand...

Don't overstate your case. No one, including myself, has said that God always works outside of logic.

I am sure you would also agree that God does not always work outside natural law.

All the while, these brilliant scientist are not understanding (at least on some level) the basic unproven presuppositions necessary to the scientific method. The primary one is material determinism.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are only three pre-suppositions necessary to science. Material determinism is not one of them.

The necessary affirmations are:

the world external to ourselves is real
the external world is ordered
the order of the external world is intelligible

But science must assume even more than that. It must assume, a priori, material causes. This casts quite a bit of light on the narrowness of science.

Click to expand...

Science certainly seeks out material causes, but it is not necessary to assume them a priori. It is enough to hypothesize them provisionally. That is the key distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

Basic Theism is the idea that God not only created the world but (unlike Deism) edits it from time to time. This enters into the equation an unknown number of physical effects from nonmaterial nonrepeating causes.

Click to expand...

I don't know that theism requires this in terms of the ordinary workings of nature. Obviously, we have revelation of some occurrences where miracles occurred for specific purposes. The virginal conception of Christ would be an example.

What I would be leery of is positing unrecorded interventions into the natural order for no other purpose than defending a particular interpretive hermeneutic.

Define "miracle." Don't know of any magical sort of miracle since photography has been invented. These days people who don't better call a statistically improbable event a miracle.

What does forensics have to do with the thread?

Calminian said:

Would consider singularities like miracles to be ordered? Would you consider freewill decisions of men to be ordered (libertarian free will)? Would you consider supernatural causation to be ordered?

If you exclude material determinism as a scientific presupposition, you'll open the door to such conclusions are miracles. Are you sure you want to do that?

Click to expand...

Depends. Do you mean this kind of miracle?

Calminian said:

For instance, what if God decided to protect someone from a bullet fired at them? What if He changed the course of the bullet's trajectory in order to make it miss. Science would not be able to predict this beforehand. (In fact science wouldn't even be able to predict the interference of a human, but let's stick with the God scenario for now). And, if God did such a thing, the bullet hole would not indicate to us what happened either. If scientific principles were applied to the bullet hole, a false conclusion about its past travels would be reached. If God changed its path, there would be no way for science to know where the original shot came from. It would simply assume it traveled in a straight line (relatively straight) from the gun's barrel.

You see, this is the havoc any supernatural intervention would have on scientific predictions and extrapolations.

Click to expand...

I agree with all you say here. If this is the sort of thing you mean by "miracle" and "supernatural causation" then, no they are not ordered as they specifically interfere with the natural order and change the results in an indeterminable way.

This is why the theist is more cautious about looking only to science for answers in areas such as origins. We also look to the Bible to see if any supernatural causes were involved in our beginnings. And as you are aware, there are countless miracles of great scope and magnitude cited in the book of Genesis.

Click to expand...

I don't think many theists have problems with the miracles recorded in scripture. Some may be seeming miracles with actual natural explanations that were not perceived at the time. Some may be actual instances of supernatural intervention into the natural order in an indeterminable way.

I think the problem arises when miracles are multiplied without scriptural support and without redeeming purpose solely to defend a single intepretation of scripture that conflicts with the natural order.

There is no good reason to spin miracles out of thin air to no purpose. Because, as you say, that would wreak havoc on scientific predictions and extrapolations. In fact, successful prediction would be impossible. But it clearly is possible, so we must reject a continually intervening creator. The Creator did not make an ordered world only to be intervening in it on momentary whims.

It is ok to speculate what would happen to the trajectory of a bullet if God intervened. But a police investigation properly procedes on the premise that God did not intervene.

Calminian said:

And I don't want people adding miracles to the Bible, either. But in the case of origins, I think the case is pretty clear. The supernatural interventions in Genesis are as clear as can possibly be. There were several unequivocal and unambiguous interventions of nearly infinite magnitude and scope, from the 6 day creation, to the modifications of the Curse, to the Flood, to the creation of languages. Just a miracles shouldn't be invented to explain past events, neither should interpretations be invented to harmonize scripture with natural theories.

Click to expand...

And I would say these are "clear" only on the prior assumption of a particular hermeneutic. The basis for that hermeneutic is not at all clear, and without that basis, the notion that these "miracles" are actual empirical events is suspect.

That actual empirical evidence contradicts the possibility of these supposed events generates an unnecessary conflict between general and special revelation. Such a conflict casts doubt on the actuality of creation and the faithfulness of the Creator in sustaining the natural order he created.

Calminian said:

Can someone tell me, what they believe the difference is between science and logic?

God works within the confines of logic, therefore we can strive to understand Him theo-logically.

But there's also a push, especially in the last couple hundred years, to understand Him scientifically.

Does God work within the confines of science?

If not, is it wise to strive to understand Him theo-scientifically?

Is it wise to try to understand His actions, such as His miracles and creation, scientifically?

Click to expand...

I think she works mainly from emotion.

How else can you explain her getting upset and killing every last person on the planet except for a few crazies in a boat with some animals?

Calminian said:

So then you disagree with what I said about the bullet.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That was a hypothetical that had nothing to do with interpreting scripture.

Calminian said:

Sorry, your logic again is alluding me.

Click to expand...

OK, to go back to the bullet. You presented a hypothetical situation in which God diverted the path the bullet would ordinarily take. And correctly noted that there is no way an investigation could take account of this. Based on the way the bullet lodged in a wall or whatever, an investigator would assume a certain undeflected path from gun to bullet, and so place the gun in the wrong place, because there is no evidence of the deflection.

(Note that if God had decided to use some physical means of deflection, instead of a miracle, this problem would not arise.)

I don't think we have any problem in agreeing that this hypothetical scenario is possible. But we are not assuming in any particular case that it actually happened. So we have to make a distinction between what God can do, may do, and actually does. And, as also suggested, between an action which does leave evidence and one that does not.

Now, let's go to the created order. God created this order including all the properties of matter and all the forces that govern the relationships of particles one to another for a purpose: to make a universe that sustains life, notably human life.

That purpose has never changed. From this we can come to two conclusions.
1. As long as the natural order is sufficient to God's purposes, God is unlikely to work around it. It makes no sense to propose miracles without purpose when a God-given natural order serves the purpose equally well.

2. On those occasions when God does choose to work outside the natural order, it will be for a specific purpose and will also involve some restraint. To preserve the Elijah's life by sending ravens with food, or by prolonging the small store of food of the widow of Zarepheth, is a miracle of clear purpose, and of moderate effect. It does not require tampering with the most fundamental forces of nature in such a way as to render the earth uninhabitable.

Now, finally, let us go to the creation accounts. You speak of miracles in these and in the flood accounts.

But you are treating the accounts as straightforward description of events. That involves using a certain interpretive principle. What is the reason for treating these accounts as objective description? Is objective description a typical mode in which literature is composed? Is it typical of the literature of the time? Or is it likely that the accounts are a different genre of literature?

Before one can discuss claimed miracles in the creation accounts, one must establish that the accounts are intended to be objective reports of the sort one expects in an unbiased news report.

Only then can one go on to other questions raised by the claim that a miracle has occurred.

For example, is it claimed that any of these miracles left evidence which can be investigated?